Gizmodo - the site that knowingly and illegally held a stolen iPhone prototype and was prosecuted for same offense and has since been banned from Apple announcement events has come out against a clearly superior Apple product? What a surprise!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeJay2012
Gizmodo due to past 'indiscretions', probably does not have access to Apple devices before the public does. I am sure if Gizmodo had a chance to obtain a 'stolen' iPad mini a few weeks ago, they would have had time to see what a wonderful experience it provided over a discount Kindle Fire.
Gizmodo buys stolen tech. Ballsy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Even if Cook let them back into the party they would likely continue to shit on Apple over the banning and because 'Apple is shite' articles get more page hits because Team Android comes to egg on the 'rabid iSheep' etc
The two things to look at here are battery life and what, under Apple's published math, would a display of that size need to be retina. The res might be close already but getting it all the way could be a battery killer. Apple would never do that. Compared to Amazon et al that might spec wank with a higher than needed resolution that is just wasted because the device down scales higher quality video to 720p AND that display might eat battery to the point of it not coming close to lasting all day. That is a big detail for many. Then add the lack of apps so you can use it for Amazon media and perhaps ten games and email and for many it's a no go.
2-yr old history suggests Gizmodo might have a gripe against Apple and would publish nothing but hatchet jobs. But their reviews of iPad3 and particularly iPhone5 suggest this is not the case.
Nope. Apple doesn't respond to the other boys by making products 'to compete'. They respond to their customers direct or indirect feedback
The 'response' that amazon etc gets is when they announce they sold 10 million Kindles across the lineup for the holidays. And Apple announces they sold 10 million wifi only iPad Minis in preorder alone. Indirect response but way more biting
Retina doesn't seem like a big deal at first blush, I'll give you that,
but, after using it regularly for a period of time, there's just no going back.
That's somewhat valid. This new screen is somewhere in between retina and iPad 2 resolution.... It will be interesting to see where. I also want to know what Apple plans to do for retina display minis going forward. Retina display is nice to have but I just looked at a 1900 pixel Surface with the most pixelated web browsing experience I've ever seen on a tablet. So....
I hate the writer who doesn't know what he's talking about. John Brownlee at Cult of Mac talking about resolution of iPad mini: "the minimum resolution that technically qualifies as HD is 1280 x 720 in an aspect ratio of 16:9. The iPad mini has 48 more pixels in height necessary to qualify as HD, but 256 pixels less in width."
Really? Is that mean all old movies (in 4:3) encoded at 720p are not HD?
Of course their comment system is so f_ked up I couldn't post there.
Is there movie shot at that aspect ratio? Is there any video at all in that aspect ratio?
I doubt it. Hmm, I guess it would actually be 960x720 if we're talking "old film reconverted for Blu-ray release", and no, that's not HD. Yeah, that was a WAY wrong resolution that I picked earlier.
Retina doesn't seem like a big deal at first blush, I'll give you that,
but, after using it regularly for a period of time, there's just no going back.
I felt the same about the iPhone 4 too. And the 4S seemed similar (although had a tinge of yellow tint to it). But I thought it was gorgeous- and looking at a 3GS I had laying around while I had my 4S side-by-side, there was no comparison. It was better by a mile. Interestingly enough- with the iPhone 5, when I compare the color reproduction next to the 4S.... IT makes the 4S look bad for crying out loud!
So I'm with you- once you go retina, it's hard to go back. The main thing the mini has going for it is its brand new, so there is nothing to compare it to- so it not being retina isn't as big of a deal. Me, I'll wait for retina- mainly because I think we'll see it around May/June. Hey- look- I pulled numbers out of my butt because I have a gut feeling... I'm an analyst!
I doubt it. Hmm, I guess it would actually be 960x720 if we're talking "old film reconverted for Blu-ray release", and no, that's not HD. Yeah, that was a WAY wrong resolution that I picked earlier.
It IS HD. Even iTunes said it's HD. Because when they used some number for HD they knew the movie, which we will see on the new TV have many aspect ratio so they only set it on vertical resolution. That means ALL films/videos with aspect ratio that have vertical resolution from 720 up are HD. 16:9 has nothing to do with it. We don't even have films shot in 16:9.
I doubt it. Hmm, I guess it would actually be 960x720 if we're talking "old film reconverted for Blu-ray release", and no, that's not HD. Yeah, that was a WAY wrong resolution that I picked earlier.
You mean 920x720 isn't HD- right? Not an old film converted for Blu-Ray isn't HD? Because Gone with the wind, wizard of oz, to kill a mockingbird, and some of the other jaw-dropping blu ray catalog releases would disagree.
It IS HD. Even iTunes said it's HD. Because when they used some number for HD they knew the movie, which we will see on the new TV have many aspect ratio so they only set it on vertical resolution. That means ALL films/videos with aspect ratio that have vertical resolution from 720 up are HD. 16:9 has nothing to do with it. We don't even have films shot in 16:9.
Actually, several films are 1.78:1- which take advantage of the whole 16:9. Films shot for use in iMax are even larger in several instances, but cropped down to 1.78:1. But most are around 2.40:1.
Or on a television forum. Those exist, right? There have to be hardline TV fans…
While 720 is "HD"- they have to define 1080p as "true HD". Stupid sounding. We also hear "1080p HD". Why don't we have "SD" (480), "Almost HD" (720) and "HD" (1080) and then "like- really, really HD" (4k). Where does it end? lol
Actually, several films are 1.78:1- which take advantage of the whole 16:9. Films shot for use in iMax are even larger in several instances, but cropped down to 1.78:1. But most are around 2.40:1.
I think you confused "films" with "digital videos", like Avatar for example. Mostly films are shot in 1.85:1 which is roughly 16:9 but not quite. You can still see a little black bar at the top and bottom. Try to notice it.
While 720 is "HD"- they have to define 1080p as "true HD". Stupid sounding. We also hear "1080p HD". Why don't we have "SD" (480), "Almost HD" (720) and "HD" (1080) and then "like- really, really HD" (4k). Where does it end? lol
It ends at Super Hi-Vision, period. They'll try to call it 8k, but calling it "SHV" to distinguish from "HD" (1080), "crap" (720), and "Grandpa's just going senile; he never actually watched video at that low a quality" (480) is a better idea, I think.
Actually I think Amazon made a mistake putting the two side by side. First thing you notice is how huge the black bezel is on the Fire compared to the smaller bezel on the mini. Looking at the two side by side does not make me want a Fire.
I think you confused "films" with "digital videos", like Avatar for example. Mostly films are shot in 1.85:1 which is roughly 16:9 but not quite. You can still see a little black bar at the top and bottom. Try to notice it.
Ya- my bad. I just saw that before you posted. Films are 2.35:1, and 2K rigs are 1.85. Maybe I'm thinking of the first several years of HD cameras where they used 1.78. Forgot about the 2k rigs.
Stereo speakers on anything the width of a tablet work great. You really get that stereo separation on the Kindle IF YOUR HEAD IS THE SIZE OF A CAT'S. Maybe. Stereo only works properly when there is a significant distance between the speakers.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange
Gizmodo - the site that knowingly and illegally held a stolen iPhone prototype and was prosecuted for same offense and has since been banned from Apple announcement events has come out against a clearly superior Apple product? What a surprise!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeJay2012
Gizmodo due to past 'indiscretions', probably does not have access to Apple devices before the public does. I am sure if Gizmodo had a chance to obtain a 'stolen' iPad mini a few weeks ago, they would have had time to see what a wonderful experience it provided over a discount Kindle Fire.
Gizmodo buys stolen tech. Ballsy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Even if Cook let them back into the party they would likely continue to shit on Apple over the banning and because 'Apple is shite' articles get more page hits because Team Android comes to egg on the 'rabid iSheep' etc
The two things to look at here are battery life and what, under Apple's published math, would a display of that size need to be retina. The res might be close already but getting it all the way could be a battery killer. Apple would never do that. Compared to Amazon et al that might spec wank with a higher than needed resolution that is just wasted because the device down scales higher quality video to 720p AND that display might eat battery to the point of it not coming close to lasting all day. That is a big detail for many. Then add the lack of apps so you can use it for Amazon media and perhaps ten games and email and for many it's a no go.
2-yr old history suggests Gizmodo might have a gripe against Apple and would publish nothing but hatchet jobs. But their reviews of iPad3 and particularly iPhone5 suggest this is not the case.
Nope. Apple doesn't respond to the other boys by making products 'to compete'. They respond to their customers direct or indirect feedback
The 'response' that amazon etc gets is when they announce they sold 10 million Kindles across the lineup for the holidays. And Apple announces they sold 10 million wifi only iPad Minis in preorder alone. Indirect response but way more biting
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus009
This isn't really a valid argument anymore.
"When the iPad 3 came out," sure, back then.
I felt the same about the iPhone 4 at first, too.
Retina doesn't seem like a big deal at first blush, I'll give you that,
but, after using it regularly for a period of time, there's just no going back.
That's somewhat valid. This new screen is somewhere in between retina and iPad 2 resolution.... It will be interesting to see where. I also want to know what Apple plans to do for retina display minis going forward. Retina display is nice to have but I just looked at a 1900 pixel Surface with the most pixelated web browsing experience I've ever seen on a tablet. So....
I hate the writer who doesn't know what he's talking about. John Brownlee at Cult of Mac talking about resolution of iPad mini: "the minimum resolution that technically qualifies as HD is 1280 x 720 in an aspect ratio of 16:9. The iPad mini has 48 more pixels in height necessary to qualify as HD, but 256 pixels less in width."
Really? Is that mean all old movies (in 4:3) encoded at 720p are not HD?
Of course their comment system is so f_ked up I couldn't post there.
Originally Posted by matrix07
Really? Is that mean all old movies (in 4:3) encoded at 720p are not HD?
350x720 isn't HD, no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
350x720 isn't HD, no.
Is there movie shot at that aspect ratio? Is there any video at all in that aspect ratio?
Originally Posted by matrix07
Is there movie shot at that aspect ratio? Is there any video at all in that aspect ratio?
I doubt it. Hmm, I guess it would actually be 960x720 if we're talking "old film reconverted for Blu-ray release", and no, that's not HD. Yeah, that was a WAY wrong resolution that I picked earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus009
This isn't really a valid argument anymore.
"When the iPad 3 came out," sure, back then.
I felt the same about the iPhone 4 at first, too.
Retina doesn't seem like a big deal at first blush, I'll give you that,
but, after using it regularly for a period of time, there's just no going back.
I felt the same about the iPhone 4 too. And the 4S seemed similar (although had a tinge of yellow tint to it). But I thought it was gorgeous- and looking at a 3GS I had laying around while I had my 4S side-by-side, there was no comparison. It was better by a mile. Interestingly enough- with the iPhone 5, when I compare the color reproduction next to the 4S.... IT makes the 4S look bad for crying out loud!
So I'm with you- once you go retina, it's hard to go back. The main thing the mini has going for it is its brand new, so there is nothing to compare it to- so it not being retina isn't as big of a deal. Me, I'll wait for retina- mainly because I think we'll see it around May/June. Hey- look- I pulled numbers out of my butt because I have a gut feeling... I'm an analyst!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I love what imore.com did here:
This comparison is so lame. A pitiful try to excuse the iPad mini. It explains itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I doubt it. Hmm, I guess it would actually be 960x720 if we're talking "old film reconverted for Blu-ray release", and no, that's not HD. Yeah, that was a WAY wrong resolution that I picked earlier.
It IS HD. Even iTunes said it's HD. Because when they used some number for HD they knew the movie, which we will see on the new TV have many aspect ratio so they only set it on vertical resolution. That means ALL films/videos with aspect ratio that have vertical resolution from 720 up are HD. 16:9 has nothing to do with it. We don't even have films shot in 16:9.
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I doubt it. Hmm, I guess it would actually be 960x720 if we're talking "old film reconverted for Blu-ray release", and no, that's not HD. Yeah, that was a WAY wrong resolution that I picked earlier.
You mean 920x720 isn't HD- right? Not an old film converted for Blu-Ray isn't HD? Because Gone with the wind, wizard of oz, to kill a mockingbird, and some of the other jaw-dropping blu ray catalog releases would disagree.
Originally Posted by ClemyNX
This comparison is so lame. A pitiful try to excuse the iPad mini. It explains itself.
Er, what?
Originally Posted by matrix07
It IS HD. Even iTunes said it's HD.
Ooh, don't say that on an HD forum, though.
Or on a television forum. Those exist, right? There have to be hardline TV fans…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Ooh, don't say that on an HD forum, though.
Or on a television forum. Those exist, right? There have to be hardline TV fans…
There might have I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
It IS HD. Even iTunes said it's HD. Because when they used some number for HD they knew the movie, which we will see on the new TV have many aspect ratio so they only set it on vertical resolution. That means ALL films/videos with aspect ratio that have vertical resolution from 720 up are HD. 16:9 has nothing to do with it. We don't even have films shot in 16:9.
Actually, several films are 1.78:1- which take advantage of the whole 16:9. Films shot for use in iMax are even larger in several instances, but cropped down to 1.78:1. But most are around 2.40:1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Er, what?
Ooh, don't say that on an HD forum, though.
Or on a television forum. Those exist, right? There have to be hardline TV fans…
While 720 is "HD"- they have to define 1080p as "true HD". Stupid sounding. We also hear "1080p HD". Why don't we have "SD" (480), "Almost HD" (720) and "HD" (1080) and then "like- really, really HD" (4k). Where does it end? lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol
Actually, several films are 1.78:1- which take advantage of the whole 16:9. Films shot for use in iMax are even larger in several instances, but cropped down to 1.78:1. But most are around 2.40:1.
I think you confused "films" with "digital videos", like Avatar for example. Mostly films are shot in 1.85:1 which is roughly 16:9 but not quite. You can still see a little black bar at the top and bottom. Try to notice it.
Originally Posted by Andysol
While 720 is "HD"- they have to define 1080p as "true HD". Stupid sounding. We also hear "1080p HD". Why don't we have "SD" (480), "Almost HD" (720) and "HD" (1080) and then "like- really, really HD" (4k). Where does it end? lol
It ends at Super Hi-Vision, period. They'll try to call it 8k, but calling it "SHV" to distinguish from "HD" (1080), "crap" (720), and "Grandpa's just going senile; he never actually watched video at that low a quality" (480) is a better idea, I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
I think you confused "films" with "digital videos", like Avatar for example. Mostly films are shot in 1.85:1 which is roughly 16:9 but not quite. You can still see a little black bar at the top and bottom. Try to notice it.
Ya- my bad. I just saw that before you posted. Films are 2.35:1, and 2K rigs are 1.85. Maybe I'm thinking of the first several years of HD cameras where they used 1.78. Forgot about the 2k rigs.